Proposal: min-cbj-ana

[Crazy8oooo]

You just missed that at no point was retention said, and inserted your own idea despite the other clues. Instead of saying "I misread tee proposal" you are pointing fingers unnecessarily.

In the end, it's understood now what was meant, so everyone can move on, yes?

For clarity, my initial post was simply that it wasn’t a good deal for the Ducks. I said nothing about retention or point fingers. It wasn’t until the other poster opposed me that I said it wasn’t clear. Why did that have to turn into another poster then flaming me that I should do math and do research? Could it not just be that it wasn’t clear to everyone and just leave it at that? It was a simple misunderstanding that could’ve been avoided by having more clear info from the start. The other poster felt it needed to be turned into a flame session. Ridiculous that it was blown up by a simple comment that it wasn’t clear.

 

[Ducks DVM]

You just missed that at no point was retention said, and inserted your own idea despite the other clues. Instead of saying "I misread the proposal" you are pointing fingers unnecessarily.

In the end, it's understood now what was meant, so everyone can move on, yes?

It’s still a bad deal for Anaheim.

 

[TaLoN]

It’s still a bad deal for Anaheim.

Never said it was. Very little incentive from the Ducks perspective in this.

 

[Digitalbooya]

For clarity, my initial post was simply that it wasn’t a good deal for the Ducks. I said nothing about retention or point fingers. It wasn’t until the other poster opposed me that I said it wasn’t clear. Why did that have to turn into another poster then flaming me that I should do math and do research? Could it not just be that it wasn’t clear to everyone and just leave it at that? It was a simple misunderstanding that could’ve been avoided by having more clear info from the start. The other poster felt it needed to be turned into a flame session. Ridiculous that it was blown up by a simple comment that it wasn’t clear.

How could you know if it was a good deal or not if you didn’t know the details of the trade? If it wasn’t clear, then why would you oppose it without asking for further clarification?

 

[Digitalbooya]

Never said it was. Very little incentive from the Ducks perspective in this.

Disagree. 2nd+3rd for $2.175M in cap space they are not going to use is pretty incentivizing. Anaheim has over $20M in cap for this year. Over $40M next offseason.

I think it’s a waste of draft picks for Minnesota. We could fit $4.35M under our cap by other means.

 

[VT]

Laine will learn to fly before any of these proposals are implemented. The only fair one was a suggestion from a Toronto fan.

 

[57special]

Disagree. 2nd+3rd for $2.175M in cap space they are not going to use is pretty incentivizing. Anaheim has over $20M in cap for this year. Over $40M next offseason.

I think it’s a waste of draft picks for Minnesota. We could fit $4.35M under our cap by other means.

It's really how you feel about Laine as a player, as to whether it's good or not for MN.

If Laine stays healthy'ish, I could see him being a good fit on a 2nd line together with Zucc and Rossi, or Zucc and JEE. Zucc is a pass first player who might be a good fit for a shooter like Laine. Getting Laine would allow MN to keep Boldy and Kaprizov together, which is a pretty elite duo.

Has to be weighed against losing a future 1st(ugh), and a late'ish 1st(Lambos). If Laine has a resurgence, as a near P/PG, then a good deal, even though he is a limited player. If he is on a downward slide, then an L for MN.

 

[CanadienShark]

For clarity, my initial post was simply that it wasn’t a good deal for the Ducks. I said nothing about retention or point fingers. It wasn’t until the other poster opposed me that I said it wasn’t clear. Why did that have to turn into another poster then flaming me that I should do math and do research? Could it not just be that it wasn’t clear to everyone and just leave it at that? It was a simple misunderstanding that could’ve been avoided by having more clear info from the start. The other poster felt it needed to be turned into a flame session. Ridiculous that it was blown up by a simple comment that it wasn’t clear.

It seems like you're the only one here who thinks it's unclear. No one else is arguing through multiple pages that it is.

 

[Xoggz22]

Laine will learn to fly before any of these proposals are implemented. The only fair one was a suggestion from a Toronto fan.

Shhhh...don't say that outloud.

 

[Voodoo Glow Skulls]

Laine
Merzlikins

For

Gibson
Fabbri


?

 

[Adam da bomb]

Laine
Merzlikins

For

Gibson
Fabbri


?

delete post.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

I would rather acquire Laine for the purposes of having Laine play for the Ducks than to retain on him and trade him for almost nothing.

 

[Digitalbooya]

I would rather acquire Laine for the purposes of having Laine play for the Ducks than to retain on him and trade him for almost nothing.

This is weird phrasing. You didn’t trade anything for him, so why would you get anything more than the value of retention in this deal?